Fourth Amendment Gutted

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just dealt the death blow to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Ina bizarre decision in Utah v. Strieff, the court voted 5-3 to make a dead letter of that fundamental protection against tyranny.Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer joined the four allegedly Catholic, ostensibly “conservative” justices in a majorityopinion rendered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The remaining three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, ElenaKagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ironically, defended the rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, againstunreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probablecause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But, in an illogical thought process not unlike that through which SCOTUS discovered—i.e., invented—a “right” to abortion in the “penumbras” of the Constitution,the “originalist” and “strict constructionist” members of the court resumed their paradoxically activistjihad against citizens’ constitutional protections, greatly expanding the U.S. police state.

In the Strieff case, which originated inDecember 2006, Edward Strieff left a South Salt Lake City, Utah, house on foot. Narcotics detectiveDouglas Fackrell had been observing that house periodically for possible illegal drug activity. Fackrell approached pedestrian Strieff anddemanded identification without probable cause to make the stop. All parties, including all SCOTUS justices, agree this violated the Fourth Amendment.

Fackrell ran a warrant check on Strieff—again, without probable cause—and “discovered” an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation.Fackrell then arrested Strieff and searched him, finding a quantity of illegal methamphetamines.

Strieff was convicted subsequently of a drugviolation and appealed. A unanimous Utah Supreme Court overturned the conviction becauseof the “exclusionary rule,” preventing the use of criminal evidence obtained through an unconstitutionalsearch or seizure, even though, as a result, ostensibly clear criminal activity sometimes goes unpunished. The state appealed to SCOTUS.

The question before the court was fundamental:whether there are significant exceptions to the people’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.For a number of years, SCOTUS has answered “yes,” gradually expanding the range ofpolice activity that allegedly voids those constitutional protections. And it has been the state-worshiping, supposedly conservative justices—including the late Antonin Scalia—who have abandoned the Constitution and right reason infavor of even the most egregiously improper law enforcement tactics.

Through sophistry and bad logic, Thomasessentially declared that the ends justify the means. If the activity or object discovered throughan unconstitutional police action is illegal, the evidence can still be used against the suspect if theconnection between the unconstitutional policingand the search or seizure is “attenuated” by an intervening circumstance—in this case, thewarrant check.

But the warrant check was an intended and immediate aspect of the detective’s “fishing expedition” for evidence and therefore cannot justifiablybe separated from the unconstitutional demand for “papers, please.”

To arrive at his conclusion, Thomas assumes a great deal: the detective’s “good intentions” and ignorance of the law in the face of his owntestimony, and the supposedly rare and isolated nature of this sort of constitutional violation. Apparently, the Fourth Amendment is merely adeterrent to bad police behavior, according to SCOTUS, but no deterrent is needed, because cops allegedly mean well.

Justice Sotomayor excoriated Thomas’s incredibly deceptive and wrongheaded opinion: “The court today holds that the discovery of a warrantfor an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendmentrights. . . . [Fackrell’s] discovery of a warrant was not some intervening surprise that he could not have anticipated. Utah lists over 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in its database.”

Strieff is the final chisel mark on the FourthAmendment’s gravestone. From Whren to Brinegar to Herring to Heien v. North Carolina,SCOTUS has justified law enforcement’s phony excuses for stopping citizens, ignorance of fact, and even ignorance of the law. Citizens’ ignoranceof the law, however, will land them in jail. If an officer’s actions are “reasonable,” the FourthAmendment does not apply. “We don’t need no stinking search warrant.”

Turning the Constitution on its head, theSCOTUS justices now allow police to stop a citizen for any or no reason, “discover” grounds for arrest,and use any evidence “found” to criminalize the individual. But don’t worry. The impeccably honest,even if stupid, police would never falsify a post-facto search warrant or plant evidence on a suspect. Yeah, right.

Thomas has a point, though. Clearly, the tyrannicaland increasingly demented or insane Supreme Court is a far greater danger to our freedom.Still, two wrongs don’t make a right. Time to impeach, try, and remove the “Idiotic Eight.”

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.